1. The Fly Rod as a Hammer....and as an Earthworm

[Peter Patricelli]

The fly rod as a hammer….and as an earthworm

 

It is all about models. Unfortunately, but perhaps inevitably, models for describing fly casting and fly rod behavior has been dominated by both the precedent and predominance of trout level fly fishing. The traditional light rods, small flies, and short line casting of fresh water trout fishing contrasts sharply with the heavy rods, large flies, and double-hauled distance and wind-fighting casting of modern saltwater fly fishing.

 

Ask any Florida fly fishing guide who gets booked by visiting trout fishermen who “want a go” at the big boys and buy, for the first time on their lives, a 9 weight rod. Two different worlds, connected by similar physics and principles, but applied quite differently.

 

Out of the “trout” world models were developed to describe, clarify, and teach the “magic” that occurs in a fly cast. They also proposed to clarify, regulate, and code the continuum of line weight and rod stiffness, …..and simplify matching the two, a very worthy goal! Unfortunately, based on a singular knowledge of trout casting and trout equipment, the model developers did not even understand, initially, how inadequate and off the mark their models were.

 

Let me clarify the differences…and why they seriously change the physics.

 

Throwing 35 feet of a 3 weight line involves a one handed flick of the wrist barely utilizing a fraction of hand/arm/shoulder power. A 100 foot SW cast with a 9 weight involves BOTH arms and for many stresses the limit of their upper extremity power(s). In heavier weights strength becomes the limiting issue.

 

The shortening effect of the rod-as-lever is trivial dealing with light line and minor power needs. But when trying to maximally accelerate a heavy load, the shortening effect of rod-as-lever becomes a drastically critical issue.

 

The trout flick involves little more than loading the rod, the swing weight and inertia of which is a much larger issue in comparison to the weight-load of the fly line…and then letting the rod unload. Given that the weight of reel seat, cork, guides, wrapping, and tiptop are mostly a constant ,the SW rod is only marginally heavier., a factor of maybe two. But the SW rod is asked to accelerate a weight-load 3-4 times heavier and deal with forces many more times greater than that. The role and importance of rod weight and inertia becomes a progressively smaller factor.

 

The double haul, a singular manuver absolutely required to effectively cast SW rods, and the rod loading necessary for the haul to be efficient, is not a requirement in short line trout casting.

 

What is the payoff for developing an effective model? That is a very good question. Monetarily, clearly….nothing. Even if this model, or some permutation of this model, or some completely different model achieves everything I could hope a model could do, it is perfectly clear that the fly rod and to a lesser degree the fly line industry are committed to a confused chaos where superlative adjectives and a continuous hype-promoted need for the “newest best” is the business model. One will never, in the current climate of the industry, see the REAL performance parameters of the rods reduced to generic, standard, easily comparable numeric equivalents. Like, say…a hammer.

 

But, there is still a need and wish from the consumer side of the equation to cut through the BS. Most fly fishers perceive, at first, that they want to buy a rod based on the line weight designation, say a nine weight rod. Unconsciously, I think most REALLY want to buy a rod that will perform WITH a 9 weight line, since they HAVE a 9 weight line OR want to throw flies thrown with a 9 wt. Certainly, right now, one can predict what a 9 wt line flying through the air can do more accurately than one can predict how a 9 wt rod will perform…with… WHICH line? Then it slowly dawns on them that in order to throw a 9 weight line they maybe better buy an 8 wt rod….or if they buy a 9 wt rod….maybe it is going to cast for them best with a 10 wt rod. A system that would accurately predict how a rod will both “feel” and perform based on a standard line weight loading across the spectrum of line weights would be priceless.

 

This was the goal of the Common Cents System (CCS), developed by a mid-west trout fisherman who admittedly never cast more than 35 feet (read his own write-up). It was debating the disturbing inappropriateness of the parameters of the system, 1/3 rod length loading, Action Angle, and the not inappropriate but more tangential ERN that started this whole inquiry. It was only after months of analyzing WHY the CCS system failed at the level of SW rods that I found that the CCS system had already been disqualified as a model for SW rods by a major SUPPORTER of the CCS system for TROUT RODS.

 

(*edited - link removed - commercial links at that link - TimS)

 

In his final paragraph, after 5 chapters of careful and extensive use of the CCS system:

 

“"Below is a quick explanation of why I choose to treat long distance casting as a separate issue. All of the previous articles are associated with the simple casting stroke shown in the first figure. The second figure shows a representation of the long distance stroke with differences in the back cast and front cast shown. The entire casting stroke depends on a very significant rod deflection to maintain a straight line path. The finish depends on a significant counter flex in the rod to help with loop formation. There is also energy associated with the haul. None of these issues were addressed here and are of significant importance. I plan on talking about these more in future articles and when I learn enough about them to not sound like and idiot."

 

And earlier:

 

“"What then about action angle (AA) that is already in the data base? It does give a picture of rod taper. But is it all inclusive? If a rod was built to such dimensions out of a high modulus and another of a lower modulus that yielded the same action angle and ERN, are they the same? Or is it even possible to build such a rod? If we take the Sexyloops data base and plot ERN vs AA it would look like Figure XII. below. The chart doesn’t seem to show a lot of correlation but maybe there isn’t any. It also doesn’t appear to be very usable."

 

Had I discovered this 6 months ago the argument would have been over and I would not be where I am today. Mixed feelings there.

 

My personal example of the opaqueness of the CCS system is the following: I asked myself, if I took the two most DIFFERENT 9’ 8 wt rods I own, rods which have vastly different ERN and AA and cast them both identically in the most dramatically different situations, 1) how would they compare and 2) would the parameters within the CCS system, ERN and AA actually predict any of the result.

 

Rod A ERN 6.9 AA 66

 

Rod B ERN 9.5 AA 72

 

These are BOTH 8 weights!! That is a whole different discussion. According to the CCS Rod A is a wimpy, not-quite 7 weight with a moderate action and rod B is almost a 10 wt with a very fast action.

 

 

 

The video below shows me casting one of these rods. The fisheye lens shortens the length of the cast in the side view. Yes, that is the Columbia River Gorge in the background.

 

Rod B, the stiff, fast rod threw an SA 12 wt tarpon (full) line 96 feet.

 

Rod A, the wimpy, moderate action rod threw the SA 12 wt Tarpon line 94 feet.

 

Previously, throwing an 11 wt floater shooting head:

 

Rod B 76 feet shooting line - 106 ft total line

 

Rod A 74 feet shooting line - 104 feet line

 

The rod in the video is rod A!

 

 

Clearly, the CCS has little to no intrinsic value at predicting ANY of this with SW rods and casting. A different system which would predict real life performance, using meaningful and intuitive parameters, would be of real value.

 

People can choose to use whatever model they want. They can pick up a rod and wiggle it. They can ask Bubba, the fly shop owner. They can blindly "trust" the rod manufacturers rod number. The ideal situation would be to actually cast the rod with the line intended or desired. Lacking that, they COULD choose the rod based on real-life performance measurements based on the line weight they might use.

 

Next:

 

II. Really………hammers and earthworms!!

[The Fisherman]

RE: The double haul, a singular manuver absolutely required to effectively cast SW rods,

 

I've never made a double haul cast in my life, and I seem to do OK.

 

If F = M x A, why can't I use a little more M and a little less A to get the F I need? Rhetorical, I know, because that's what I do, and I don't think any of the stripers I've caught over the years would argue that my casts have been ineffective.

 

But, I really do appreciate your passion for the subject.

 

 

 

 

 

[Bielsa]

Thanks Peter, what a nice place to be, really nice spot, great.

 

I think that we can´t go across physics when we are casting a fly line. I think new rods do our cast performing in an easy way, more hours fishing with out being tired but that´s all. 100 feet average casts in a normal fishing day.. it´s a nice distance to fish. I read about CCS system, all brands should show the weight of their lines in grains. This would help us a lot. Fly fishing is just a sense that it´s increasing with practice.

 

When I am filming myself I know that many people like you know how to cast a rod better than I could do . But in my hands with a poor casting stroke, not visualy effective 100 feet line ( all line ) will be casted out soon or is easily casted already with a line like the Rio Outbound short 9wt, that I cast with a 11wt rod and a 2/0 fly attached.

 

On the other hand what The fisherman says, using czech nymph you are still catching fish, if they are there ,why don´t. I think it´s more important the slack of the line in the water than in the double haul, beause if a slack is presented in the water you won´t strike a fish it means practice again, ( mending or not mending, mending after the cast or before the cast... ). I think low weight outfits till 7wt are better to increase distance and cast over 100 feet. Because it´s easy to stop the inertia of the fly rod + reel + line in the air. And I think that managing line in the air increase the feeling of casting.

 

I don´t know if I could attach links so I am sharing 3 videos to those who want improve their casting like me.

 

1 and 2 , are till today my base videos.. there was a video posted by HL that it´s one of my favourites too. 3 is a man that don´t hauls at all but he is very happy with his skills and I know perfectly that he fishes more than I could do in my lifetime. But in the end he loves fishing for sure as much as we all do. These videos are from youtube:

 

1 ) Testing the new Loop Evotec 696 MF, with André Brun

 

2) Double Hauling with Eoin Fairgrieve

 

3) Grayfisher1 "Hauling" Why?

 

 

[Peter Patricelli]

(*edited - Peter, on this forum, folks are allowed to respectfully express their opinions. If that opinion is contrary to yours, you are required to respectfully respond or ignore them. You are not welcome to insult them, antagonize them or insult them. If you can't handle respectfully presented opposing opinions, then please just ignore them - thanks. TimS)

[Andrew S.]

RE: The double haul, a singular manuver absolutely required to effectively cast SW rods,

 

I've never made a double haul cast in my life, and I seem to do OK.

 

If F = M x A, why can't I use a little more M and a little less A to get the F I need? Rhetorical, I know, because that's what I do, and I don't think any of the stripers I've caught over the years would argue that my casts have been ineffective.

 

But, I really do appreciate your passion for the subject.

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's the stripers that you DIDN'T catch that you should be addressing!

 

:-)

[The Fisherman]

RE: I think it's the stripers that you DIDN'T catch that you should be addressing!

 

When they become an issue, Andrew, I surely will. :-)

[JonC]

Steve,

You simply don't know what you're missing!

JC

[Mike Oliver]

Peter,

 

If I was a single harmful bacteria in one of your patients body. I would be running scared knowing you were their MD. You wonderfully humerous, tenacious Old Bastard.

 

 

Mike

[formula1]

 

If F = M x A, why can't I use a little more M and a little less A to get the F I need? Rhetorical, I know, because that's what I do, and I don't think any of the stripers I've caught over the years would argue that my casts have been ineffective.

 

 

You're actually not looking at the equation incorrectly. If you decrease A by 50% for example and increase M a proportionate amount, you are not increasing F, you still have to use the same amount of force. You need to re-arrange the equation:

 

If F = M * A, then A = F/M. Acceleration is what gives us fly line speed and ultimately more distance. You want to increase A. To increase A you either increase F or decrease M. Increasing M is the wrong thing to do unless you compensate with more F. To get more A without increasing Force, you need to use a lighter mass actually.

 

To increase acceleration you need to keep M the same and increase F. Since we are not machines, there is a limit to just how much F we can smoothly apply with our casting arms. Hence the double haul technique which adds a second arm/hand into the equation to increase that F in the equation. Very little haul is required to reap large benefits. Try it, you just might find out you like it .

[crunch]

Also we can increase acceleration choosing lighter and/or stiffer and/or faster/tippier action rod too. (Also rod length has an effect)

 

Often difficult to see in practice but in theory all those increase casting efficiency. And not necessarily in distance casting but somewhere in casting range.

 

Also fly line profile has an effect what speed fly leg of line loop has at different stage of the cast.

[Mike Oliver]

Crunch,

 

Give it up. Go Fishing , Take your new wife to Dinner. Plan our next trip even or insanity will be just around the corner and for those around you to:D

 

 

Mikey. O

[crunch]

 

Throwing 35 feet of a 3 weight line involves a one handed flick of the wrist barely utilizing a fraction of hand/arm/shoulder power. A 100 foot SW cast with a 9 weight involves BOTH arms and for many stresses the limit of their upper extremity power(s). In heavier weights strength becomes the limiting issue.

 

Peter, you are right they are completely different but same physics apply.

 

The shortening effect of the rod-as-lever is trivial dealing with light line and minor power needs. But when trying to maximally accelerate a heavy load, the shortening effect of rod-as-lever becomes a drastically critical issue.

 

This shortening of rod as a lever was the biggest disagreement we had and so far you have not proofed you were right and I was wrong. If you do not believe Tim Rajeff please load test your class fiber rod. I believe the difference will be significant.

 

But, there is still a need and wish from the consumer side of the equation to cut through the BS. Most fly fishers perceive, at first, that they want to buy a rod based on the line weight, say a nine weight. Unconsciously, I think most REALLY want to buy a rod that will perform WITH a 9 weight line, since they HAVE a 9 weight line OR want to throw flies thrown with a 9 wt. Certainly, right now, one can predict what a 9 wt line flying through the air can do more accurately than one can predict how a 9 wt rod will perform…with… WHICH line? Then it slowly dawns on them that in order to throw a 9 weight line they maybe better buy an 8 wt rod….or if they buy a 9 wt rod….maybe it is going to cast for them best with a 10 wt rod. A system that would accurately predict how a rod will both “feel” and perform based on a standard line weight loading across the spectrum of line weights would be priceless.

 

With CCS it is easy to proof if rods have improved or not. Very good example is Hardy Sintrix rods. They are advertised being 30% lighter and it sure is ********. They are not even near of Orvis Helios when stiffness is compared to weight. I know because I have Zenith.

 

This was the goal of the Common Cents System (CCS), developed by a mid-west trout fisherman who admittedly never cast more than 35 feet (read his own write-up). It was debating the disturbing inappropriateness of the parameters of the system, 1/3 rod length loading, Action Angle, and the not inappropriate but more tangential ERN that started this whole inquiry. It was only after months of analyzing WHY the CCS system failed at the level of SW rods that I found that the CCS system had already been disqualified as a model for SW rods by a major SUPPORTER of the CCS system for TROUT RODS.

 

(*edited - link removed - commercial links at that link - TimS)

 

In his final paragraph, after 5 chapters of careful and extensive use of the CCS system:

 

“"Below is a quick explanation of why I choose to treat long distance casting as a separate issue. All of the previous articles are associated with the simple casting stroke shown in the first figure. The second figure shows a representation of the long distance stroke with differences in the back cast and front cast shown. The entire casting stroke depends on a very significant rod deflection to maintain a straight line path. The finish depends on a significant counter flex in the rod to help with loop formation. There is also energy associated with the haul. None of these issues were addressed here and are of significant importance. I plan on talking about these more in future articles and when I learn enough about them to not sound like and idiot."

 

That distance casting he writes is not the casting what you talk as "salt water casting" It is competition distance casting. Please search: "170 bouncing bomb" and learn basics.

 

“"What then about action angle (AA) that is already in the data base? It does give a picture of rod taper. But is it all inclusive? If a rod was built to such dimensions out of a high modulus and another of a lower modulus that yielded the same action angle and ERN, are they the same? Or is it even possible to build such a rod? If we take the Sexyloops data base and plot ERN vs AA it would look like Figure XII. below. The chart doesn’t seem to show a lot of correlation but maybe there isn’t any. It also doesn’t appear to be very usable."

Action Angle best defines rod action as a lever. Again the biggest disagreement we had.

 

No rods are not the same because of different weight (MOI) To test the difference you can make rod worse and feeling "old" adding weight to the blank. Easy way is to pull spare line through the guides, out of the tip top and then back from first guide. Then test cast how much line you can keep in the air. IMHO nobody who does not have a DT line of very long belly fly line can completely understand FLY LINE casting.

 

Had I discovered this 6 months ago the argument would have been over and I would not be where I am today. Mixed feelings there.

 

I like to "argue" with you and like your enthusiasm because that makes these discussion forums interesting. But honestly I don't argue with you. We just have different opinions.

 

My personal example of the opaqueness of the CCS system is the following: I asked myself, if I took the two most DIFFERENT 9’ 8 wt rods I own, rods which have vastly different ERN and AA and cast them both identically in the most dramatically different situations, 1) how would they compare and 2) would the parameters within the CCS system, ERN and AA actually predict any of the result.

 

Rod A ERN 6.9 AA 66

 

Rod B ERN 9.5 AA 72

 

These are BOTH 8 weights!! That is a whole different discussion. According to the CCS Rod A is a wimpy, not-quite 7 weight with a moderate action and rod B is almost a 10 wt with a very fast action.

 

Rod B, the stiff, fast rod threw an SA 12 wt tarpon (full) line 96 feet.

 

Rod A, the wimpy, moderate action rod threw the SA 12 wt Tarpon line 94 feet.

 

Previously, throwing an 11 wt floater shooting head:

 

Rod B 76 feet shooting line - 106 ft total line

 

Rod A 74 feet shooting line - 104 feet line

 

The difference is unbelievable small but perhaps because you did shoot a lot of line rod guides had effect. And I believe you would see bigger difference with a long belly/DT fly line.

 

Another which has some effect is MOI so please measure them too.

 

Clearly, the CCS has little to no intrinsic value at predicting ANY of this with SW rods and casting. A different system which would predict real life performance, using meaningful and intuitive parameters, would be of real value.

 

People can choose to use whatever model they want. They can pick up a rod and wiggle it. They can ask Bubba, the fly shop owner. They can blindly "trust" the rod manufacturers rod number. The ideal situation would be to actually cast the rod with the line intended or desired. Lacking that, they COULD choose the rod based on real-life performance measurements based on the line weight they might use.

 

Next:

 

II. Really………hammers and earthworms!!

 

With CCS it is possible to measure rod differences accurately and then compare them. There are many who know fly line casting much better than we together use CCS. Competition casters and scientists.

 

Esa

 

 

[crunch]

Crunch,

 

Give it up. Go Fishing , Take your new wife to Dinner. Plan our next trip even or insanity will be just around the corner and for those around you to:D

 

Mikey. O

 

Sometimes I don't have possibility to do anything important so I spend time here. I just visited wifes parents and today bought a new cabin to the kitchen so I don't need to take her to dinner soon Inlaws have a very big grass yard where I did two good practice sessions and tested new lines and shooting heads too. Unfortunately not much fishing lately.

 

Esa

 

 

[formula1]

 

With CCS it is easy to proof if rods have improved or not. Very good example is Hardy Sintrix rods. They are advertised being 30% lighter and it sure is ********. They are not even near of Orvis Helios when stiffness is compared to weight. I know because I have Zenith.

 

Esa

 

 

Esa, the saltwater Hardy Proaxis Sintrix is a completely different model lineup from the Zenith rods. It's like saying "I know Helios because I have an Orvis TLS." For the record, the Sintrix saltwater rods were developed to combine light weight with fish fighting power. The Helios does not even compare to the Sintrix (nor to the Xi3, NRX or Crosscurrents) for fighting big fish. There's a reason not a single serious competitor in any of the major tarpon tournaments use Helios. As I've stated before, some of the best big game fly rod anglers I know have tried the Helios and state categorically that they blow up like toothpicks when you put serious pressure on them.

 

 

[formula1]

 

With CCS it is possible to measure rod differences accurately and then compare them. There are many who know fly line casting much better than we together use CCS. Competition casters and scientists.

 

Esa

 

 

Esa, what scientists study CCS?

 

I'm a Mechanical engineer by education, graduated Deans List from one of the top engineering schools in the US, I can clearly see the flaws that CCS has - there is no way deflecting rods to 1/3 of the length can possibly predict what they will do in a dynamic situation. You already stated a flaw in the CCS in that it cannot account for a rod's mass helping load the rod in the case of the TiCr rods from TFO. There are many, many other flaws. If indeed there are scientists who believe the CCS system I can only conclude that they have no real world understanding of how casting mechanics work or I'd have to call them crack pots...